Literature DB >> 28093663

Large, Prospective Analysis of the Reasons Patients Do Not Pursue BRCA Genetic Testing Following Genetic Counseling.

Sommer Hayden1, Sarah Mange2, Debra Duquette2, Nancie Petrucelli3, Victoria M Raymond4.   

Abstract

Genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) identifies high-risk individuals who benefit from enhanced medical management. Not all individuals undergo GT following GC and understanding the reasons why can impact clinical efficiency, reduce GT costs through appropriate identification of high-risk individuals, and demonstrate the value of pre-GT GC. A collaborative project sponsored by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services prospectively collects anonymous data on BRCA-related GC visits performed by providers in Michigan, including demographics, patient/family cancer history, GT results, and reasons for declining GT. From 2008 to 2012, 10,726 patients underwent GC; 3476 (32.4%) did not pursue GT. Primary reasons included: not the best test candidate (28.1%), not clinically indicated (23.3%), and insurance/out of pocket cost concerns (13.6%). Patient disinterest was the primary reason for declining in 17.1%. Insurance/out of pocket cost concerns were the primary reason for not testing in 13.4% of untested individuals with private insurance. Among untested individuals with breast and/or ovarian cancer, 22.5% reported insurance/out of pocket cost concerns as the primary reason for not testing and 6.6% failed to meet Medicare criteria. In a five-year time period, nearly one-third of patients who underwent BRCA GC did not pursue GT. GT was not indicated in almost half of patients. Insurance/out of pocket cost concerns continue to be barriers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRCA; Barriers; Genetic Counseling; Genetic Testing; Insurance; Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28093663     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-016-0064-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  23 in total

1.  Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  K Armstrong; K Calzone; J Stopfer; G Fitzgerald; J Coyne; B Weber
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 2.  Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-09-06       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Genetic counselor review of genetic test orders in a reference laboratory reduces unnecessary testing.

Authors:  Christine E Miller; Patti Krautscheid; Erin E Baldwin; Tatiana Tvrdik; Amanda S Openshaw; Kim Hart; Danielle Lagrave
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 4.  Men's decision-making about predictive BRCA1/2 testing: the role of family.

Authors:  N Hallowell; A Ardern-Jones; R Eeles; C Foster; A Lucassen; C Moynihan; M Watson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  L C Hartmann; T A Sellers; D J Schaid; T S Frank; C L Soderberg; D L Sitta; M H Frost; C S Grant; J H Donohue; J E Woods; S K McDonnell; C W Vockley; A Deffenbaugh; F J Couch; R B Jenkins
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-11-07       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Factors associated with an individual's decision to withdraw from genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: implications for counseling.

Authors:  Béatrice Godard; Annabelle Pratte; Martine Dumont; Adèle Simard-Lebrun; Jacques Simard
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2007

7.  Disparities in BRCA testing: when insurance coverage is not a barrier.

Authors:  Windy Olaya; Pamela Esquivel; Jan H Wong; John W Morgan; Adam Freeberg; Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury; Sharon S Lum
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.565

8.  Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance.

Authors:  Sining Chen; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-04-10       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Clinical utility of genetic and genomic services: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  The Angelina effect: immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public.

Authors:  Dina L G Borzekowski; Yue Guan; Katherine C Smith; Lori H Erby; Debra L Roter
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  14 in total

1.  The strategic defense of physician autonomy: State public health agencies as countervailing powers.

Authors:  Laura Senier; Rachael Lee; Lauren Nicoll
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2017-06-03       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Why Patients Decline Genomic Sequencing Studies: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

Authors:  Laura M Amendola; Jill O Robinson; Ragan Hart; Sawona Biswas; Kaitlyn Lee; Barbara A Bernhardt; Kelly East; Marian J Gilmore; Tia L Kauffman; Katie L Lewis; Myra Roche; Sarah Scollon; Julia Wynn; Carrie Blout
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Implementing Cancer Genomics in State Health Agencies: Mapping Activities to an Implementation Science Outcome Framework.

Authors:  Ridgely Fisk Green; Marie T Kumerow; Juan L Rodriguez; Siobhan Addie; Sarah H Beachy; Laura Senier
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Utilization of genetic testing in breast cancer treatment after implementation of comprehensive multi-disciplinary care.

Authors:  Samfee Doe; Shariska Petersen; Monique Swain
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 2.431

5.  Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jenny Lin; Ravi N Sharaf; Rachel Saganty; Danyal Ahsan; Julia Feit; Andrea Khoury; Hannah Bergeron; Eloise Chapman-Davis; Evelyn Cantillo; Kevin Holcomb; Stephanie V Blank; Ying Liu; Charlene Thomas; Paul J Christos; Drew N Wright; Steven Lipkin; Kenneth Offit; Melissa K Frey
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 5.304

6.  Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing.

Authors:  David D Stenehjem; Trang Au; Amy M Sainski; Hillevi Bauer; Krystal Brown; Johnathan Lancaster; Vanessa Stevens; Diana I Brixner
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Malignant Brenner tumor associated with a germline BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Michael D Toboni; Haller J Smith; Sarah E Dilley; Lea Novak; Charles A Leath
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Rep       Date:  2017-05-31

8.  Factors Associated with Declining to Participate in a Pediatric Oncology Next Generation Sequencing Study.

Authors:  Katianne M Howard Sharp; Niki Jurbergs; Annastasia Ouma; Lynn Harrison; Elsie Gerhardt; Leslie Taylor; Kayla Hamilton; Rose B McGee; Regina Nuccio; Emily Quinn; Stacy Hines-Dowell; Chimene Kesserwan; Anusha Sunkara; Jami S Gattuso; Michelle Pritchard; Belinda Mandrell; Mary V Relling; Cyrine E Haidar; Guolian Kang; Liza M Johnson; Kim E Nichols
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2020-03-24

9.  Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Annie Wang; Jessica N Everett; Jennifer Chun; Cindy Cen; Diane M Simeone; Freya Schnabel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  Evaluating the role of public health in implementation of genomics-related recommendations: a case study of hereditary cancers using the CDC Science Impact Framework.

Authors:  Ridgely Fisk Green; Mary Ari; Katherine Kolor; W David Dotson; Scott Bowen; Nancy Habarta; Juan L Rodriguez; Lisa C Richardson; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.